Choisissez la langue de votre document :
- bg - български
- es - español
- cs - čeština
- da - dansk
- de - Deutsch
- et - eesti keel
- el - ελληνικά
- en - English
- fr - français
- ga - Gaeilge
- hr - hrvatski
- it - italiano
- lv - latviešu valoda
- lt - lietuvių kalba
- hu - magyar
- mt - Malti
- nl - Nederlands
- pl - polski
- pt - português
- ro - română
- sk - slovenčina
- sl - slovenščina
- fi - suomi
- sv - svenska
|
 Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors – Keit Pentus-Rosimannus |
| ||||||
(Consultation) The European Parliament, – having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9‑0316/2022), – having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0272/2022), A. whereas, by letter of 20 September 2022, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Keit Pentus-Rosimannus as a Member of the Court of Auditors; B. whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate Keit Pentus-Rosimannus’s credentials, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; whereas in carrying out that evaluation, the committee received a curriculum vitae from Keit Pentus-Rosimannus, as well as the replies to the written questionnaire that she had been sent; C. whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with Keit Pentus-Rosimannus on 8 November 2022, at which she made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee; 1. Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Keit Pentus-Rosimannus as a Member of the Court of Auditors; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. | |||||||
| Closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020, – having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2020, together with the agencies’ replies(1), – having regard to the statement of assurance(2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2020, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 28 February 2022 on discharge to be given to the Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2020 (06003/2022 – C9‑0101/2022), – having regard to its decision of 4 May 2022(3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2020, and the replies from the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, – having regard to its decision of 18 October 2022(4) refusing to grant the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency discharge for the financial year 2020, – having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012(5), and in particular Article 70 thereof, – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624(6), and in particular Article 116 thereof, – having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 of 18 December 2018 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies set up under the TFEU and Euratom Treaty and referred to in Article 70 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7), and in particular Article 105 thereof, – having regard to Rule 100 of, and Annex V to, its Rules of Procedure, 1. Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency for the financial year 2020; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement: participation of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in Union programmes |
| |||||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12669/2019), – having regard to the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the general principles for its participation in Union programmes(1), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 209 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9‑0115/2021), – having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A9-0253/2022), 1. Gives its consent to the conclusion of the Protocol; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Palestine.
| ||||||||||
| Gender balance among directors of listed companies |
| |||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Council position at first reading (10521/1/2022 – C9-0354/2022), – having regard to its position at first reading(1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0614), – having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committees responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A9-0275/2022), 1. Approves the Council position at first reading; 2. Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position; 3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; 4. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; 5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
| ||||||||||
| Resilience of critical entities |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0829), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9‑0421/2020), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the opinion of European Economic and Social Committee of 27 April 2021(1), – having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 1 July 2021(2), – having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 21 September 2022 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Transport and Tourism, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0289/2021), 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; 2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal; 3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 22 November 2022 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2022/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resilience of critical entities and repealing Council Directive 2008/114/EC
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive (EU) 2022/2557.)
| |||||||||||||
| Common fisheries policy (CFP): restrictions to the access to Union waters |
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2021)0356), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9‑0254/2021), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 22 September 2021(1) – having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 12 October 2022 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0206/2022), 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; 2. Approves the joint statement by Parliament and the Commission annexed to this resolution, which will be published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union; 3. Takes note of the statement by the Commission annexed to this resolution, which will be published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union; 4. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal; 5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 22 November 2022 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 as regards restrictions to the access to Union waters
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2022/2495.) ANNEX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION Statement by the European Parliament and the Commission on fisheries in the Channel The European Parliament and the Commission take note of the situation of fisheries in the Channel and the concerns raised by local and regional fisheries stakeholders, including fishers, regarding the use of demersal seines by numerous vessels. The European Parliament and the Commission encourage close cooperation between those stakeholders and initiatives from them and invite Member States to follow up, where relevant, with the submission of joint recommendations. The Commission will follow up with measures, where appropriate, including technical measures, based on consultations of stakeholders and an assessment by the relevant scientific bodies including an assessment of socio-economic impacts. In that regard, the Commission will ensure that funding is available for scientific research and advice. Statement by the Commission on review of the CFP Regulation In the event that it considers a review of the CFP Regulation, the Commission will conduct an impact assessment, along the lines of the Better Regulation principles. The Commission will make available to the co-legislators the impact assessment at the moment it publishes such proposal. Alternatively, it will consider reporting on the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy at the latest by 2032.
| |||||||||||
| Decisions of European standardisation organisations |
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0032), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9‑0033/2022), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 26 August 2022(1), – having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 19 October 2022 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A9-0205/2022), 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; 2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal; 3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 22 November 2022 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 as regards decisions of European standardisation organisations concerning European standards and European standardisation deliverables
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2022/2480.)
| |||||||||||
| Drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers: initial qualification and periodic training (codification) |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure – codification) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2021)0034), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9‑0008/2021), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 24 February 2021(1), – having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 - Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(2), – having regard to Rules 109 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0267/2022), A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance; 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 22 November 2022 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2022/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers (codification)
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive (EU) 2022/2561.)
| |||||||||||||
| EU/New Zealand Agreement: modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (07910/2022), – having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (07911/2022), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9‑0296/2022), – having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0273/2022), 1. Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of New Zealand. | |||||||
| Amending Decision (EU) 2015/2169 on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12600/2022), – having regard to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 91, Article 100(2), Article 167(3), Article 207 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0343/2022), – having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0277/2022), 1. Gives its consent to the draft Council decision; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Republic of Korea. | |||||||
| Borrowing strategy to finance NextGenerationEU |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to Article 5(3) of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union(1) (Own Resources Decision), – having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2020/2094 of 14 December 2020 establishing a European Union Recovery Instrument to support the recovery in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis(2), – having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources(3), – having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027(4), including the joint and unilateral declarations agreed as part of the multiannual financial framework (MFF), – having regard to the Commission communication of 14 April 2021 on a new funding strategy to finance NextGenerationEU (COM(2021)0250), – having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council decision amending the Own Resources Decision (COM(2021)0570), – having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640) and Parliament’s resolution of 15 January 2020 thereon(5), – having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A9-0250/2022), A. whereas the Own Resources Decision empowers the Commission to borrow funds of up to EUR 750 billion in 2018 prices between 2021 and 2026 on the capital markets on behalf of the Union for the sole purpose of addressing the consequences of the COVID‑19 crisis through NextGenerationEU (NGEU), the EU’s recovery instrument; whereas EUR 360 billion in 2018 prices may be used to provide loans to Member States and EUR 390 billion may be used directly for EU expenditure; B. whereas the repayment of the funds borrowed and the related interest is to be borne by the Union budget and scheduled so as to ensure the steady and predictable reduction of liabilities until 31 December 2058 at the latest; whereas the own resources ceilings have been increased by 0,6 % in order to cover all Union liabilities resulting from NGEU borrowing; C. whereas Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted a legally binding roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources with a view to generating sufficient funds to cover expected expenditure related to the repayment of NGEU, thereby not reducing funding for Union programmes and policies; D. whereas under the Own Resources Decision, the Commission must comprehensively inform Parliament and the Council on a regular basis about all aspects of its debt management strategy, including an issuance calendar with expected issuance dates and volumes for the forthcoming year, and a plan setting out the expected principal and interest payments; E. whereas the total amount programmed for NGEU and the payment of the periodic coupon and redemption at maturity (EURI repayment costs) has been set at EUR 14,7 billion for the 2021-2027 period; Rationale of the borrowing for NextGenerationEU 1. Stresses that NGEU is the largest EU common borrowing programme and the first that not only grants loans to Member States, but also provides direct Union budget expenditure embedded in genuine EU programmes and policies; underlines that common Union debt managed by the Commission boosts the size, impact and added value of the Union budget, thereby supporting the post-COVID-19 recovery and delivering on long-term EU priorities, in particular the green and digital transitions; 2. Points out that with average annual borrowing volumes of EUR 150 billion until 2026, the NGEU borrowing programme makes the Union a key player on the financial markets, puts it on a par with other major European sovereign issuers, and makes it the largest supranational issuer and the largest green bond issuer; 3. Underlines that the success of the borrowing strategy will be judged by its ability to raise the funds necessary for the implementation of NGEU on the capital markets in a timely and relatively low-cost manner, and to repay the debt by 2058 on the basis of a profile that is both smooth and predictable, without crowding out established programme expenditure under the MFF ceilings and endangering future EU action; stresses that the Union’s issuance should not upset borrowing conditions for other European issuers and should even play a positive role on capital markets, notably by meeting investors’ demands for euro-denominated assets and for new products such as green bonds; Description and assessment of the NextGenerationEU borrowing strategy to date 4. Notes that the Commission has developed and put in place a new and large funding programme and built up its debt management capacities swiftly and efficiently; welcomes the fact that issuances have taken place at a steady pace since the first issuance in 2021 and have all been heavily oversubscribed, revealing strong investor interest and enabling the Commission to meet its funding targets; notes with satisfaction that, as is consistent with the Union’s AAA-rating, EU products have been traded at attractive interest rates that are on a par with other large European and supranational issuers; 5. Acknowledges that the funding strategy adopted by the Commission is diversified and offers a wide range of products (bonds and bills) and maturities (from three months to 30 years) through various issuance methods (syndicated transactions and auctions) on a regular schedule; 6. Notes the Commission’s decision to rely on a large Primary Dealer Network, which constitute important partners in ensuring well-functioning primary and secondary markets and reporting to the Commission on market conditions; reminds the Commission of the importance of ensuring that banks meet their legal requirements and of seeking a better geographical balance both in terms of membership within the Primary Dealer Network and the leading role of syndicated transactions; calls on the Commission to ensure that members of the Primary Dealer Network have sufficient incentives and obligations in order to play their role; 7. Takes note of the annual borrowing decisions and funding plans published by the Commission thus far; underlines that transparency regarding the Commission’s borrowing strategy and operations is key to achieving successful coordination with other market players and ensuring accountability, notably for Parliament, as well as awareness and ownership among decision-makers and the general public; calls on the Commission, in this context, to swiftly and systematically inform Parliament by providing disaggregated data on all charges incurred in issuing EU debt, including the Commission’s charges to EURI as administrative costs as well as the costs incurred by Member States when taking on loans under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF); 8. Observes that in line with the annual borrowing decision and the semi-annual funding plans, the Commission had raised more than EUR 113 billion on the financial markets as of June 2021, including EUR 23 billion in the form of green bonds and bonds with short-, medium- and long-term maturities; takes good note of the information provided with regard to the distribution of investor type and geographical distribution; calls for continued transparent communications about the progress of the bond auctions and syndications; Potential positive effects and challenges of NextGenerationEU borrowing 9. Believes that by making the Union one of largest bond issuers in Europe, NGEU can have a positive impact on the stability and liquidity of EU capital markets, improve the EU’s economic outlook, complement the macroeconomic architecture of the euro area and strengthen the international role of the euro; notes that NGEU is legally limited in size and in time, and could play an even more influential role as a source of safe assets and help to integrate EU financial markets and bolster the Union’s resilience, provided that lessons are properly heeded; notes, in addition, that both the temporality and the volume of the NGEU borrowing programme limits the potential of EU bonds to become genuine safe assets, to serve the proper functioning of the financial markets and to improve the stability of the economic and monetary union; calls on the Commission to reflect on potential ways to maintain the outstanding volume of NGEU bonds beyond 2027 in order to prevent liquidity decline shortly after the peak is reached at the end of the NGEU spending phase; 10. Notes the high demand for and smooth integration of the EU’s debt on capital markets; calls on the Commission to consolidate the standing of EU debt by diversifying the investor profile, stimulating secondary markets and removing technical obstacles; 11. Highlights, in particular, that the Union could set benchmarks for sustainable investment as the largest global issuer of green bonds, as well as by diversifying its investor base and securing lower borrowing costs; stresses the important role of green bonds in financing the assets needed for the low-carbon transition; welcomes the fact that the Commission’s green bond framework employs high sustainability standards; urges the Commission to prevent any kind of greenwashing and to ensure high-quality reporting on the use of proceeds so as not to put the green premium at risk; notes that the do-no-significant-harm principle serves as a standard for expenditure financed under NGEU; stresses that by issuing part of the NGEU debt as green bonds, Member States and the Commission have a responsibility to do their utmost to ensure that the commitments made towards investors on climate spending are fulfilled, and expects the Commission to fully live up to its commitment to exclude problematic projects from being financed by green bonds as soon as any duly substantiated concerns of greenwashing are raised; welcomes the NGEU Green Bond Dashboard, an interactive webpage with reporting information on investments financed from the green bonds(6); 12. Is of the opinion that the Commission should deploy robust auditing measures to ensure the proper implementation of the RRF, in particular in order to reduce the risk of any kind of greenwashing, and in view of the unique configuration of NGEU, whereby the Commission raises funds in capital markets and is responsible vis-à-vis investors, but the Member States actually spend the money; calls on the Member States, therefore, to stick to the commitments they made in their recovery and resilience plans, implement those commitments properly and in full, and provide thorough reporting to the Commission on the implementation of the milestones and targets; 13. Notes that despite its scale, NGEU has so far successfully mitigated the risk of demand for other European sovereign bonds being crowded out; emphasises that by making the sovereign market of the euro area more attractive, especially to non-EU investors, NGEU issuance may have a positive impact on the demand for securities issued by other European market players; invites the Commission to continue to coordinate closely with the debt agencies of the Member States and with the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the European Stability Mechanism; reiterates the importance of spreading the trading of EU debt through other EU stock exchanges in line with the principles of the capital markets union; 14. Argues, furthermore, that NGEU is having a positive impact on the attractiveness and sustainability of Member State debts by offering AAA-rated borrowing conditions to all Member States through RRF loans, helping to significantly lower sovereign yields and discounting grants from the calculation of national debt, as well as conveying a strong message to financial markets about the resilience and cohesion of the euro area and the EU; 15. Believes that NGEU shows the merits of a more ambitious, collective and democratic crisis response at EU level; considers that an opportunity for EU citizens to buy EU bonds directly could increase their sense of belonging to the EU; asks the Commission to develop a simple and transparent mechanism in this regard; notes that this practice already exists in several Member States; believes that the economic benefits would be significant and would outweigh the costs of implementation; notes that the substantial crisis support funded by joint debt issuance has strengthened the confidence in the resilience of the EU and its Member States and that financial market participants widely acknowledge that the European financial architecture is more robust; underlines that the successful implementation of NGEU demonstrates that the EU has provided an adequate response to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; calls on all EU institutions, therefore, to ensure that the EU delivers on its promises, including offering a long-term political vision; 16. Notes with concern the new challenges posed by the lack of security in the global environment as a result of Russia’s illegal, unprovoked and unjustified aggression against Ukraine and the sharp rises in inflation and interest rates, which affect sovereign issuers; warns that the costs of funding have increased significantly due to the challenging market conditions and that massive uncertainties are expected in the long‑term interest landscape; anticipates that this will affect the EURI repayment line in the EU budget; observes with concern that higher than programmed refinancing costs are already having an impact on availabilities in Heading 2b and are even eating into the limited availabilities of the special instruments in the course of the annual budget procedure; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the situation and regularly inform the budgetary authority; acknowledges that the Commission is having to operate in a very uncertain market beyond the 99 % confidence interval; recalls that all payments of financial contributions to Member States should be made by 31 December 2026, as established under the EURI and RRF Regulations, but that changes to this deadline could be made; underlines that such changes will require both the EURI and RRF Regulations to be amended; 17. Considers that the full potential of NGEU can only be unlocked if all national recovery and resilience plans are implemented effectively and in a timely manner; is concerned by several Member States’ lack of financial absorption capacity; regrets the dynamic that has occurred in some Member States whereby the implementation of traditional EU funds has been delayed in order to absorb RRF funds more quickly; encourages the Member States to make full and consistent use of the loans provided under NGEU; 18. Underlines that further investments in EU policies will be necessary to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness, resilience and strategic autonomy, particularly with regard to industry and climate action; considers that permanent redeployments are not a viable long-term solution for financing EU priorities and underlines the need for additional resources; recalls that climate change as well as the ongoing war in Ukraine highlight the urgent need to end the Union’s dependence on third countries in essential sectors of its economy, such as energy, raw materials, industry and agriculture; considers, in this connection, that the announcement made by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the creation of a European Sovereignty Fund is in line with Parliament’s resolution of 19 May 2022(7) and the Conference of Presidents’ statement of 30 June 2022 on the 2023 Commission Work Programme; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to give further consideration, in line with the recommendations of the Conference on the Future of Europe, to common borrowing at EU level with a view to creating more favourable borrowing conditions, while maintaining responsible fiscal policies at Member State level; regrets the systematic creation and use of instruments, funds and common borrowing programmes, including NGEU, outside the scope of the EU budget and with no scrutiny or control from the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the budgetisation of borrowing and lending operations and of all future EU programmes or instruments; requests that Parliament be fully involved in all cases through co-decision; Union budget and new own resources 19. Points out that the features of NGEU borrowing will have direct consequences on repayments from the Union budget for decades; insists, therefore, on optimising the debt service and ensuring a smooth debt profile in order to spread out the future burden evenly; 20. Underlines that the EU’s borrowing and lending capacity has increased considerably with NGEU; insists on the need to involve the budgetary authority at all stages of the lending and borrowing process; recalls that under the Own Resources Decision, the Commission is required to publish a regularly updated plan of expected principal and interest payments, to be discussed with Parliament and the Council at regular interinstitutional meetings on NGEU; 21. Reiterates its firm demand that the budgetary appropriations for the EURI repayment costs should be entered in the EU budget over and above the MFF ceilings in order to safeguard the margins and flexibility mechanisms for their intended purposes; calls for the relevant modifications to be made to the MFF Regulation during the MFF mid-term revision; 22. Firmly believes that the ultimate success of NGEU, and in particular the credibility and sustainability of its financing, will also be assessed against the Union’s ability to repay the common debt with new own resources in the environmental and corporate sector, rather than with increased gross national income-based contributions from the Member States; 23. Highlights that new own resources are a key enabler for the Union to implement its policy priorities, due partly to the need for increased investment to address energy independence and help mitigate the social impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and in order to speed up the green energy transition; stresses that the introduction of new own resources would avoid cuts having to be made to Union programmes in the future, which would undermine the very purpose and long-term benefits of the recovery plan; believes that introducing new own resources, as agreed in the legally binding Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020, would achieve lasting benefits, not only in delivering EU policies but also ensuring the Union’s standing as a credible and smart debt issuer; calls on the Member States, therefore, to move as swiftly as possible and speed up the negotiations on the first basket of the so‑called new generation of EU own resources based on the EU Emissions Trading System, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and Pillar I of the OECD international agreement on the minimum taxation of multinationals, as outlined by the Commission on 22 December 2021; urges the Council to approve the first basket of own resources before the end of 2022; 24. Notes, however, that the estimated proceeds from these three own resources would not suffice to cover NGEU borrowing debt; reiterates its demand, therefore, that the Commission put forward a proposal for the second basket of new own resources before December 2023, including a proposal for a financial transaction tax, in order to ensure sufficient resources for NGEU debt repayments; underlines the legally binding roadmap established under the Interinstitutional Agreement; asks the Commission, in view of the recent economic challenges however, to be even more ambitious and not to exclude the possibility of adding own resources that are innovative, new and – preferably – genuine; o 25. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Implementation report on the European Innovation Council |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Title XIX thereof, – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination(1), – having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation(2), – having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union(3), – having regard to the European Innovation Council (EIC) work programmes for 2021 and 2022, – having regard to the EIC impact report 2021, – having regards to the Commission communication of 11 January 2018 entitled ‘Horizon 2020 interim evaluation: maximising the impact of EU research and innovation’ (COM(2018)0002), – having regard to the impact assessment of 7 June 2018 accompanying the Commission’s proposal for Horizon Europe (SWD(2018)0307), – having regard to the statement from the EIC Board of 16 August 2022 for the discussion in Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on EIC implementation(4), – having regard to the statement by the EIC Board of 9 February 2022 on the EIC work programme for 2022 and future of the EIC Fund(5), – having regard to the Commission press release of 5 August 2022 entitled ‘EIC Accelerator implementation update’(6), – having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A9-0268/2022), General objectives and structure of the EIC under Horizon Europe A. whereas the EIC is the EU’s flagship innovation programme to identify, develop and scale up breakthrough, and in particular deep-tech, innovations; whereas the EIC will facilitate and enhance networking and cooperation and create synergies between different innovation communities in the EU and with the EIT in particular, ensuring broad geographical coverage; whereas it was set up to foster Europe’s technological strategic autonomy as well as to improve the functioning of the European venture capital market; B. whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/695 identifies the EIC as ‘a centrally managed one-stop shop’ which ‘shall focus mainly on breakthrough and disruptive innovation, targeting especially market-creating innovation, while also supporting all types of innovation, including incremental’; C. whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/695 stipulates that the EIC must operate in accordance with clear Union added value, autonomy, ability to take risk, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability; D. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 stipulates that the EIC has two objectives: firstly, to identify, develop and deploy high-risk innovations of all kinds, including incremental; and secondly, to support the rapid scale-up of innovative companies at Union and international levels along the pathway from ideas to market; E. whereas the EIC is implemented through three main pillars: the EIC Pathfinder; the EIC Transition; and the EIC Accelerator; F. whereas the Pathfinder provides grants to high-risk cutting-edge projects that explore new and deep-tech areas with the aim of developing potentially radical innovative technologies of the future and new market opportunities; G. whereas the Accelerator mainly supports small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with the ambition of developing breakthrough, deep-tech innovations which are key to Europe’s future growth and open strategic autonomy; H. whereas the Accelerator is implemented mainly by using EIC blended finance awarded through a single, clear and transparent process and with a single decision, providing the supported innovator with a single global commitment to financial resources covering the various stages of innovation until market deployment, including pre-mass commercialisation; I. whereas the Horizon Europe legislation allows for the Union to bear the initial risk of the selected innovation alone; J. whereas Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 requires the Commission to establish a special purpose vehicle for the implementation of EIC blended finance and to manage all operational elements of Accelerator projects; Results of Pilot K. whereas the EIC Pilot and EIC Enhanced Pilot successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the EIC as a fully-fledged programme as outlined in the general conclusions of the 2022 evaluation study published by the Commission(7), despite some initial issues including unclear communication with beneficiaries about the investment conditions for companies; L. whereas the effectiveness of the EIC Pilot was under pressure due to low success rates; M. whereas between 2018 and 2020, the EIC Pilot funded 330 Pathfinder projects under calls with high numbers of submissions; N. whereas the geographical spread of participation and, in particular, coordination of the Pathfinder Pilot was concentrated in the EU-15 and Associated Countries; whereas a country’s position in the European innovation scoreboard seemed to be reflected in the number of applications as well as in the success of its innovators in the Pathfinder Pilot: the innovation leaders had the highest success rates and emerging innovators had the lowest success rates; O. whereas the EIC Fund under its original structure, as put in place in 2020 under the EIC Pilot and which was accepted by the Commission at the time, was functioning appropriately; whereas 140 equity investment decisions were taken, despite the recurrent delays and issues in signing the blended finance instrument; whereas these decisions had a leverage ratio of 2,7, showing that the EIC Fund in its original structure was capable of establishing significant co-investment; P. whereas the evaluation study concludes that ‘the EIC Fund is underpinned by well-justified public policy goals and market needs’ and that ‘a contentious point on the Fund structure pivots around the interpretation of two eligibility rules: non-bankability and co-investment’; Q. whereas the due diligence procedure as established under the EIC Pilot has been particularly successful because it has delivered high quality due diligence assessments as confirmed by the fact that several of these assessments were used to attract external investors, indicating that investors base their investment decisions on due diligence of sufficient quality; R. whereas the structured professional investment advice delivered by the Investment Committee and the European Investment Bank (EIB) team embedded in the EIC and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) was able to deliver the high quality due diligence thanks to the unique cooperation between EISMEA and the EIB in combination with investment expertise brought in by external experts, including serial investors and venture capitalists, on the Investment Committee; State of implementation of the EIC under Horizon Europe S. whereas the annotated model grant agreement for Horizon Europe was published extremely late, which created significant uncertainty among applicants, including potential applicants under the EIC; T. whereas the introduction of programme managers has the potential to increase the effectiveness of the EIC; whereas a further nine programme managers have been appointed; U. whereas the work of the programme managers still lacks visibility and is seen as lacking transparency by stakeholders; V. whereas the EIC is a new type of programme which carries more financial risk than traditional Union spending and which requires a dedicated auditing strategy; W. whereas under the 2021 and 2022 work programmes, EUR 1,55 billion and EUR 1,71 billion respectively was made available for the EIC; whereas in both of those years, roughly EUR 430 million stemmed from the NextGenerationEU budget, all of which was made available for grant components of the EIC; whereas about 52 % of the available budget was allocated to open, bottom-up calls under the open calls; whereas 65 % of the available funding was allocated to the grant components of the EIC, while 35 % was allocated to the investment components; whereas nearly 70 % of the available funding was allocated to the Accelerator calls, with 20 % going to the Pathfinder calls; X. whereas the Pathfinder Open call had a success rate of 6,45 % and 7 % in 2021 and 2022 respectively; whereas under the Pathfinder Challenges call of 2021, 403 proposals were submitted and 39 proposals were awarded, which is a success rate of 9,7 %; Y. whereas for the Accelerator call there were two cut-off dates in 2021 and 2022 respectively; Z. whereas, until September 2022, the only funding transferred to Accelerator beneficiaries was grant pre-payments for which the time-to-grant was 12 months, no funds were transferred as part of (quasi-) equity support and only one investment decision was taken, leading to a time-to-investment of well over a year; whereas the Commission only started signing term sheets in the summer of 2022 for beneficiaries selected in 2021 and most of them will be signed after the summer(8); Fundamental implementation issues EIC Fund management and considerations on restructuring the Fund 1. Is deeply concerned about the announcement in early 2022 of changes to the structure of the Fund compared to the situation under the EIC Pilot, when companies from the first two cut-offs in 2021 had already been selected for funding; 2. Recalls that the EIC Fund is set up to support startups and SMEs developing deep-tech innovations; highlights the fact that cash flows are crucial for startups and SMEs, and that long delays in receiving expected funding can bankrupt these kinds of companies; emphasises, therefore, the importance of the EIC Fund in being able to invest within market-compatible timeframes; deplores the cases where the EIC Fund failed to achieve this objective and where the original investment decision of the EIC Fund was rendered irrelevant, due to the long time lag and the company’s development during that time; 3. Is concerned by the delays in the implementation of the blended finance actions under the Accelerator; emphasises that the delays were exclusively the result of divergent perspectives on the implementation of the EIC stemming from conflicting interpretations of the relevant legal texts by different departments of the Commission about the management of the EIC Fund; notes that conflicts only concerned the equity part of the project and should therefore not have affected the grant agreements; deplores the fact that these internal Commission conflicts put at risk 96 European deep-tech companies; is deeply concerned that, except for one exceptional investment decision, no decisions for actual investments have been taken by the EIC Fund; 4. Recalls that EIC blended finance should be awarded through a single process and through a single decision covering both the grant and the financial instrument components; points out that the Commission should manage all of the operational elements of Accelerator projects; 5. Recognises that the Commission expressed concerns about the management of the EIC Fund in terms of staffing implications as well as the Commission’s potential reputational liability for the investments; 6. Acknowledges the staffing concerns raised by the Commission regarding the management of the EIC Fund investment portfolio; appreciates that staffing at the EIC Fund needs to be appropriate and that this means that a significant number of staff with significant experience are required; considers, however, that directly employing these persons is not the only solution; points out that the original Investment Committee together with the EIB had developed an alternative plan to resolve the staffing issue; concludes, therefore, that the staffing challenge is not a reason for restructuring the Fund; 7. Takes note of the Commission’s reasoning that Article 11(3) of Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 requires the Commission to explore indirect management and that this prompts changes to the structure of the EIC Fund; 8. Recalls that the text of Article 11(3) was included in the Commission proposal for Horizon Europe and was never challenged during the legislative procedure; highlights the fact that this means that the Commission should have been fully aware of this text when it set up the EIC Fund in 2020; stresses that the Commission decision to set up the EIC Fund, which included the original structure, was adopted by the College of Commissioners and had the support of the entire Commission; emphasises that the same is true for the 2021 EIC work programme, which made no mention of the need to restructure the EIC Fund; concludes that the issue of compliance with Article 11(3) was raised internally in the Commission in the summer of 2021 after the programme had already started; considers that raising such a fundamental issue during a programme in operation after having missed several opportunities to raise the issue in the three years preceding the start of the programme is at the very least a case of mismanagement and a sign of reluctance to accept a new way of working as envisaged by the co-legislators; 9. Highlights that Article 11(3) is only a single sentence that needs to be read in the context of the full Council Decision; stresses in this regard also that the Annex to the above-mentioned Council Decision mandates that the Commission ‘establish a special purpose vehicle’, without laying down any other conditions; stresses, furthermore, that EIC blended finance as referred to in Article 11(3) and defined in point 1.1.2 of Annex I to the Council Decision includes both grants and support for investment in the form of equity or other repayable forms; concludes, therefore, that the requirement of indirect management cannot be read as applying only to the investment part of blended finance and that this article cannot be interpreted in such a way that the two components are separated in implementation; 10. Notes the importance of the professional preparation of an investment decision; highlights, therefore, the role of the EIC Fund Investment Committee appointed by the Commission as well as the valuable support for due diligence provided by the EIB embedded in EISMEA; regrets, however, that further decisions of the EIC Fund, such as joining an investment round after the initial investment decision or establishing a rationale for an investment, seem to take too long, in part due to the time it takes the EIB to provide its input; 11. Notes that both the EIC Investment Committee and the EIC Fund Board, under the original set-up of the EIC Fund, included representatives of the Commission as well as external experts, ensuring a proper balance between policy coherence and professional investment decisions; 12. Notes that by October 2022 the Commission had adopted and implemented a ‘transition arrangement’ under which the EIC Fund remains in the ownership of the Commission while an external fund manager will take the Fund’s investment decisions; highlights that the external fund manager will also recruit staff to the Investment Committee and that this means that no more independent experts providing invaluable expertise will be on the Committee and no Commission representatives will be ensuring policy coherence; takes note of the description of this arrangement in the 2022 EIC work programme; 13. Notes with concern that until the transitional arrangement for the investments announced in the EIC 2022 work programme was in place, all single award decisions and all substantial investment decisions needed to be approved by the College of Commissioners and were therefore accompanied by another level of scrutiny; regards this as an unacceptable situation because it makes the decision-making process even longer, more complex and with more uncertainty for the applicants; 14. Notes with deep concern that just setting up the transitional arrangement for the EIC Fund took over a year due to continuous internal discussions between the different Commission departments; notes that in June 2022 the Commission started processing the grant components of the Accelerator projects selected in June 2021, indicating that sufficient progress had been made in setting up the transitional arrangement to be able to start implementing blended finance projects; notes that most of the grant agreements for grantees selected under the June 2021 cut-off were signed in the summer of 2022, resulting in it taking more than a year to receive the grant; notes that in May 2022 the Commission communicated that the grant components for the EIC blended finance grantees from the October 2021 cut-off date would be finalised by the end of May or early June(9); notes that the Commission had to inform these grantees over the summer of 2022 that the grants would not be ready by July and that they would probably have to wait until October 2022; concludes that for this cut-off date the time-to-grant will also be at least one year; 15. Highlights that Article 216(1) of the Financial Regulation expressly empowers the Commission to directly manage investments (Article 216(1b)) or to implement them through ‘a dedicated investment vehicle’ (Article 216(1a)); stresses that this form of implementation allows for more flexibility and more strategic consideration in the investment decisions and portfolio management than indirect management; rejects the notion that transferring the management of the Fund to the EIB and an external fund manager will allow for the flexibility and strategic consideration required to make the EIC a success; expresses the concern that the EIC Fund will simply become another EIB-backed venture capital fund; 16. Underscores that the EIC Board’s strategic advice needs to be more thoroughly implemented in the work of the EIC, including its recommendations to increase diversity and the inclusion of participants from a broad range of countries to realise the potential of innovators across Europe and to foster practical collaborations with the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT); EIC Fund as sole investor 17. Is deeply concerned about the apparent policy for the EIC Fund never to be the lead investor in an equity round, in particular in combination with the requirement for companies to bring in matching co-investment from external investors; believes this goes against the strategic objectives of and main logic behind the EIC; highlights the fact that this was not the policy at the beginning of the EIC Pilot and that this policy change was applied with retroactive effect to applications submitted before the policy change; is deeply concerned about the fact that this created cash-flow problems for many applicants and that only a third of the committed equity investments have actually been turned into payments to companies; emphasises that co-investment should not be an upfront requirement for projects but rather an objective of the EIC Fund during the lifetime of the grant project; 18. Recalls that the EIC can be the sole investor, taking on all the risk of an investment, in line with Regulation (EU) 2021/695; notes that this role seems to be implemented only by providing convertible loans alongside the requirement of matching co-investment for any equity investments; notes that more than 50 % of all investments under the equity component have so far been in the form of convertible loans; highlights that one of the reasons for establishing the EIC was that Europe lacks risk capital investors and, in particular, risk capital investors with expertise in deep-tech markets; notes in that regard that a dysfunctional market cannot be fully relied on as an effective mechanism to steer EIC investment and exit decisions; warns, in this regard, that requiring qualified co-investment could exacerbate the market failure which the EIC was set up to address; 19. Notes that the practice of requiring co-investment makes the EIC a follower investor, which puts it at risk of either:
20. Is alarmed by the practice of converting convertible loans to equity for companies that did not manage to attract additional investment, based on a valuation established at the time of granting the loan rather than on a valuation at the time of converting the loan; points out, in this regard, that the EIC was set up to facilitate the development and scaling-up of startups exactly in the phase where valuations can increase quickly because the risks surrounding a technology fall rapidly and market entry is closer; concludes, therefore, that relying on an old valuation goes against the objectives of the EIC; points out, furthermore, that the EIC Fund is supposed to take risks, but by using convertible loans, most of the risk is essentially passed on to the applicant; 21. Recognises that an external lead investor brings added value because this lead investor may have highly specialised knowledge of the market segment relevant for a specific investment, and that the EIC Fund, owing to its size and general nature, may not be able to match this specialised knowledge; notes, therefore, that the specialised lead investor may be of more added value to the company’s development than the EIC Fund; recognises, furthermore, that having an external lead investor would guarantee that the valuation and other terms of investment are set by the market; 22. Firmly rejects the notion that the EIC Fund cannot be the sole investor or the lead investor; emphasises that the ability to invest even when the market is not ready to do so is one of the key justifications for the existence of the EIC; concludes that the investment policy of the EIC Fund should explicitly allow for:
23. Notes that point 1.2.3 of Annex I to Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 requires the EIC Fund to define and implement an exit strategy for its investments; observes that no such strategy seems to be in place; Implementation flaws Application procedure 24. Emphasises the importance of an accessible and effective application procedure for a programme that aims to attract the most ambitious innovators; notes that the procedure can still be improved along the following lines:
25. Notes with concern that evaluators are giving mixed signals to stakeholders regarding the appropriate risk and bankability of EIC Accelerator proposals, especially affecting the participation of under-represented regions and female-led companies; recalls that one of the core principles of the EIC is the ability to take risks; recalls further that point 1.1.2 of Annex I to Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 identifies providing funding to non-bankable projects as a core objective of the EIC Accelerator; is deeply convinced that the EIC Accelerator can only be successful if there is a clear policy and communication on the appropriate risk for and bankability of EIC Accelerator projects; 26. Is concerned about the apparent lack of transparency in the management of the programme as reported by stakeholders; highlights the two main concerns of stakeholders:
27. Stresses the importance of a reliable time-to-grant promise; highlights, in this regard, that the evaluation of the 2021 Pathfinder Open call took more than five months, while Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2021/695 requires that applicants are informed within five months about the outcome of the evaluation process; 28. Expresses concern regarding the EIC Accelerator submission process, which has become longer and more complex through its several steps and own EIC platform, outside the official funding and tender opportunities portal; believes that the submission and evaluation process for an innovator-centric EIC Accelerator should be easy to understand for entrepreneurs as well as scientists, minimal in terms of the time investment needed, fair and transparent, and in line with industry standards; 29. Is deeply concerned about the way in which the AI Platform functions; notes in this regard that both applicants and evaluators have voiced concerns about the Platform; 30. Highlights that the online form is time-consuming, has no flexibility in terms of presenting information (no formatting or images possible) and uses jargon needlessly; notes that the resulting ‘Business Plan’ does not seem to meet industry standards and is not in a format which is user friendly for evaluators or project managers; 31. Draws particular attention to the increased number of pages (120-200 pages) compared to the EIC Pilot (50 pages), while pointing out that evaluators have 36 minutes to evaluate a full (second stage) proposal; notes that this is one of the reasons why stakeholders are dissatisfied with the quality of evaluation; 32. Notes with concern that a single ‘No-Go’ opinion in the second stage of the evaluation process is sufficient for an application to fail; believes this is disproportionate considering that there are three evaluators assessing the proposal and that they all give a ‘Go’/‘No-Go’ opinion on three separate evaluation criteria; 33. Appreciates, together with most stakeholders, the introduction of the rebuttal procedure. as it potentially contributes to improving the evaluation procedure; notes, however, that improvements are needed as many stakeholders report that it is unclear what happens with rebuttal remarks provided by applicants and that applicants have very little time to prepare their rebuttal; stresses that the introduction of the rebuttal procedure has been reported as one of the reasons for the longer period of time before receiving a grant; calls on the Commission to improve the rebuttal procedure and make it more meaningful by allowing it to be completed in a shorter timeframe in order to meet the deadline for providing the grant while allowing sufficient time to prepare the rebuttal; 34. Is concerned about the increasing need for applicants to hire consultants to manage the application procedure owing to its complexity; 35. Recognises that in order to facilitate the quick pace of EIC decision-making and deep-tech startup development, individuals employed by research organisations should be able to use the results of research projects to create startups; welcomes in this regard the introduction of the concept of ‘EIC Inventor’ in the model grant agreement and 2022 work programme; regrets that this introduction is accompanied by uncertainty about the legal consequences of this concept for research organisations; Other individual issues raised 36. Emphasises that the concept of ‘EIC Inventors’ should lead to the effective use of research results to develop economic activities; concludes therefore that it should not undermine the use of the results by other experts within the research organisation or by the research organisation itself to develop economic activities; believes that broad access rights for EIC Inventors, without any time limitation, are justified only in cases where the research organisations do not provide the support needed for individual researchers to use the results to develop economic activity; believes, therefore, that these access rights should be granted to EIC Inventors on a case-by-case basis when it is evident that the Inventor lacks the support needed within the research organisation; 37. Regrets that the low success rates of the programme (6-10 %) leads to too many high-quality proposals not being funded; highlights that low success rates constitute a loss in terms of potentially deeply transformative innovations not being developed further as well as in lost time and money invested in the preparation of proposals; calls for the use, in this regard, where appropriate, of two-step applications in order to limit losses in time and money invested in preparing proposals; 38. Emphasises that Europe’s innovative capacity, economic growth and resilience are undermined because of the low participation of women on the startup and venture capital scene; welcomes, in this regard, the efforts made by the EIC to promote female leadership and participation in startups and venture capital; regrets that this has not yet resulted in sufficient change; points, in this regard, to the fact that only 1,8 % of investments in European startups in 2021 were raised by startups founded exclusively by women and a mere 9,3 % were raised by mixed-gender founding teams(10); 39. Points to the importance of the EIC Board as the principle advisor to the Commission regarding the implementation of the EIC as well as the development of broader innovation policy, particular as regards improving the innovation ecosystem in Europe and identifying strategically relevant technologies; stresses that the EIC Board should be fully informed in a timely manner, both by the EISMEA and other Commission departments involved, on all developments in the implementation of the EIC, and be provided with all information which it requests regarding the EIC; 40. Notes that the EIC Transition is formally part of the EIC Pathfinder, although it is implemented as a separate programme part; considers that the Transition calls represent less than 10 % of the EIC budgets under the 2021 and 2022 work programmes; points out that the Transition calls are the only calls to which the fast track to research and innovation procedure is applied; endorses the use of this procedure for the Transition call; calls on the Commission to widen the application of this procedure to more Pathfinder calls; 41. Highlights that the 2022 work programme refers to the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle both as an evaluation criterion for the EIC Accelerator and as an eligibility criterion for the EIC in general; is alarmed by this requirement to comply with the DNSH principle as enshrined in Regulation (EU) 2020/852, known as the Taxonomy Regulation, since it is applied to all calls regardless of content or maturity; recognises the usefulness of the principle to guide the selection of projects under calls whose content directly relates to the environmental objectives of the Union and which are close to market deployment; emphasises that there is no legal basis for a blanket application of this additional eligibility criterion to all calls; 42. Welcomes the efforts within the EIC to develop a suitable framework for the evaluation of the EIC’s performance; highlights that the unique nature of the EIC requires a tailor-made approach to monitoring performance and using the outcome of that monitoring to ensure that the EIC is a top performer in the market; Recommendations 43. Calls on the Commission to re-assess its implementation of the EIC Fund in the frame of the Horizon Europe programme and to find a new fit-for-purpose management mode that reflects the ambitious and transformative nature of the EIC as the investor of reference for breakthrough innovation in Europe; urges the Commission to include in this new approach the following principles:
44. Urges the Commission to enter into an open dialogue with Parliament, the relevant programme committee and the EIC Board in order to develop an alternative long-term solution for the structure of the EIC Fund which fully respects the relevant Union legislation and the above-mentioned principles; recommends that a thorough assessment be made of ways to improve the EIC’s implementation, considering as an option the establishment of an independent Union body under Article 187 TFEU as the main entity responsible for implementing the EIC; underlines the need to ensure that applicants are always treated equally, and that implementation safeguards transparency, accountability and prevention of conflicts of interest; recommends that if the thorough assessment finds that such a body would be the best institutional setting to implement the Accelerator along the lines set out above, it should be set up as soon as possible; 45. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to the promotion of women across the innovation sector while striving for gender parity in all relevant positions, as well as geographical balance of EIC beneficiaries across the Union’s regions; requests, in particular, that the Commission include in the EIC work programmes specific measures to address both issues within the EIC; 46. Recommends that an InvestEU compartment be explored outside of the EIC Fund for companies which simply need to match funding to complete their upscaling rounds; 47. Calls on the Commission to clarify the rules and procedures regarding the interpretation of non-bankability and co-investment criteria, enhancing communication and better involving National Contact Points; 48. Calls on the Commission to apply the DNSH principle for calls whose content directly relates to the environmental objectives of the Union and which are close to market deployment, and refrain from using the DNSH principle as an additional horizontal eligibility criterion for all EIC projects; 49. Calls on the Commission to adapt the Model Grant Agreement to include a clear definition of ‘EIC Inventor’ and to stipulate a clear policy on access rights for EIC Inventors providing them broad access rights only when a research organisation does not have an active policy and structure in place to support the use of research results for economic activities; 50. Calls on the Commission to introduce a system of continuous and quick evaluation of the performance of the EIC and, in particular, of the Accelerator; 51. Calls on the Commission to include a rigorous and continuous assessment of the evaluation procedure, taking seriously into account complaints raised by applicants indicating clear inconsistencies in the evaluation of their proposals; invites the Commission to inform Parliament on how it handles individual complaints demonstrating a clear failure by the evaluators; 52. Calls on the relevant Union bodies, including the European Court of Auditors and the EIC Board, to develop a dedicated auditing strategy for the EIC which reflects the particular nature of the EIC; 53. Calls on the Commission to include measures to improve the participation of SMEs and to make the EIC Accelerator accessible and attractive for innovative SMEs, by simplifying the application process in order to remove barriers for SMEs; 54. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the instrument supports a wide range of projects in terms of their scale, so that small companies developing and scaling up high-impact innovations can have equal access to it; 55. Calls on the Commission to revise the EIC Accelerator’s current submission process and its time-to-grant period, aligning the EIC platform with the evaluation criteria of the EIC Accelerator; believes that such a revision should aim for a fast and simple instrument fit for the needs of European deep-tech startups, reaching a targeted time-to-grant of four to five months; 56. Calls on the Commission to improve synergies and collaboration with the EIT; calls on the EIT and EIC to set up reciprocal and systematic exchanges of information, as well as to have a common member in each of their governing boards, with the aim of avoiding silos and the duplication of efforts and strategies; o 57. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Legal notice - Privacy policy |